The Justice Department suffered a digital-age defeat Friday at the Supreme Court, which sided with the privacy rights of cellphone users in a dispute
over law enforcement tracking their movements. In a 5-4 ruling, the court said law enforcement generally will need a warrant for such searches. Chief
Justice John Roberts cast the deciding vote. At issue is whether the Constitution's Fourth Amendment requires a search warrant for the government to
access a person's cellphone location history. It is the latest foray by the justices into how laws should be tailored to keep up with technological
advances.

I am stunned this case had to go all the way to the SCOTUS for a ruling. A search warrant should be needed for cell phone information. I believe a
cell phone would fall into the "effects" category listed in the fourth amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.

Why does it seem it is so hard for law enforcement to understand this?
From the link:

The stakes were enormous, since this judicial precedent could be applied more broadly, including government access to Internet, bank, credit card and
telephone records.

Are records not "papers" now? Why would anyone think these are available with no warrant????

“We decline to grant the state unrestricted access to a wireless carrier’s database of physical location information,” he wrote. “The fact
that such information is gathered by a third party does not make it any less deserving of Fourth Amendment protection. The Government’s acquisition
of the cell-site records here was a search under that Amendment.”

I am glad for the outcome, but paused by the 5-4 split. We ALL are in need of our constitutional protections.

Like they really couldnt figure out if that's privacy or not. In the wrong hands half the people out there could be blackmailed and all kinds of other
potentially damaging or embarrassing scenarios; business trade secrets compromised; etc.

Interesting that the conservative Justices voted against this with the exception of Roberts.

From the link:

In dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy warned “the court’s new and uncharted course will inhibit law enforcement and ‘keep defendants and judges
guessing for years to come.’” “This case should be resolved by interpreting accepted property principles as the baseline for reasonable
expectations of privacy,” he added. “Here the government did not search anything over which Carpenter could assert ownership or control. Instead,
it issued a court-authorized subpoena to a third party to disclose information it alone owned and controlled. That should suffice to resolve this
case.” Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch also dissented.

Interesting to see what their "interpretation" of the 4th is.
Interesting to see how that squares with "conservative values". No more "values" than they are "conservative".

I was just going to post about this. Good news indeed. It was interesting that though Gorsuch didn't side with the majority, he also at the same time
seemingly dissented from the dissenters from what I've seen excerpted from his opinion.

The other conservative judges in the minority opinion pretty much echoed one another about this being a burden on law enforcement and would impede
investigations. Gorsuch went a different route, critiquing precedent. From what I gather, it appears that he took issue with relying on the rationale
of Katz v United States (1967) in almost a sort of "this doesn't go far enough" way. I wonder if it had come down to him, if he would have voted the
other way?

I'd also point out that it's a win for those who aren't strict literalists and view the Constitution as a living document. The 4th Amendment
clearly could not contain language that would protect our rights against unreasonable search and seizure in a digital age that the Framers had no way
of imagining.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.